“The Egg and the Sperm Analysis” by Emily Martin

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Summary
Analysis
References

Summary

Emily Martin in her article concentrates on how scientific language and description of male and female biological processes are different. The author analyzes how exactly the language shapes negative associations with the female reproductive system while the same language elevates the male reproductive functions (Martin, 1991). According to the author, such an approach can cause sexism and inequality in a scientific field as the language used creates negative stereotypes against the female body, its functions, and goals (Martin, 1991). In its turn, the words correlate with the cultural and social views on female anatomy, which is considered wasteful or failed because of the scientific language that is wrong.

Analysis

The process of menstruation is a vivid example of sex discrimination in science. The absolute majority of scientists uses negative connotations to describe menstruation. The most common words are “failure”, “death”, “end”, and “loss”; they describe menstruation as a failed process which does not have any positive impact or should be considered an unreasonable waste of the resources (Martin, 1991). At the same time, the production of sperm is seen as a “beginning”, “transformation”, “life”, and “achievement” for the males. Obviously, the inequality between the descriptions derives from functions of these processes. The menstruation is the end of the cycle when the woman is not impregnated, while the production of semen is the beginning of a potential new life. The rhetorical position of the author focuses on scientific language and terms promote sexism and negative image of the female reproductive system.

The author provides a clear thesis and supports it with relevant arguments. The entire article is organic and coherent, there are no contradictions or unnecessary details about the topic. The most convincing part of the research is its contrast. The comparison among different descriptions creates a strong idea of prejudice against the female body. However, at the same time, the study seems too focused and therefore limited by the single terms and words using to describe the reproductive system. The author is an anthropologist and sees the issue within cultural and social context, ignoring the anatomical and biological background of the names and words.

As a matter of fact, the scientific language is mostly based on Latin. Many modern terms and names of the diseases are adaptation or translation of Latin words (Lysanets & Bieliaieva, 2018). The author considers the term egg as something passive and lacking strength. It can be her personal opinion; however, this word does not have the meaning of something passive. The cell was called that way because of association with reproduction and the animal egg. Apart from that, these words strongly incorporate in the scientific fields which are focused on human biology. These terms in Latin are used across the planet to make translation and understanding more comfortable.

Apart from that, scientific language lacks any fictional aspects as its goal is to convey information using as little words as possible to avoid confusion. The terms which are used might seem discriminatory today; however, they do not have any negative subtext to it (Kerkhoven, Russo, Land-Zandstra, Saxena, & Rodenburg, 2016). The author seems too obsessed with the idea that there is an inequality in describing the reproductive system. However, she also states that she concentrates on different processes, as menstruation and production of sperm are different. There might be serious problems regarding sexism in science but the scientific language in regards to biological processes is not as it has a goal of universality and convenience (Smyth & Nosek, 2015).

References

Kerkhoven, A., Russo, P., Land-Zandstra, A., Saxena, A., & Rodenburg, F. (2016). Gender stereotypes in science education resources: A visual content analysis.A Peer-Reviewed, Open Access Journal, 11(11). Web.

Lysanets, Y., & Bieliaieva, O. (2018). The use of Latin terminology in medical case reports: Quantitative, structural, and thematic analysis.Journal Of Medical Case Reports, 12(45). Web.

Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Web.

Smyth, F., & Nosek, B. (2015). On the gender–science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity.Front. Psychology. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!